Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

Any takeover at the club is going to be met with scepticism, no prospective owner is going to say they are in it for the love or to make money out of football, The thing i think most folk are panicking about is what happens if/when he gets bored of the club and leaves it riddled with a load of debt which again is going to be the same for any prospective new owner. What was the indians/Gowser motives etc

For what he has promised or has visioned for us any clubs fans would be creaming themselves over it and i would be over the moon if it happened, but he did say it is a 7-10 yr plan everything isnt going to happen overnight.  The concerts will make money, hotel will make money marketted right, the football well mibbees no 

Unless someone can predict the future we just dont no so theres no sense in second guessing or reading between the lines.

Oh and the SD interview didnt tell anything main thing he said or could take out of it was he did not have much more money than him and could not put in for top of championship cash.  They spent more than 4m on a player in Will Grigg thats more than our club as a whole, Will Vaulks total deal was worth more than our club as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, brokeville said:

I seriously hope MC doesn’t read this thread. Can we stop speculating and let the process run its course. Let’s get back to talking football.

This willingness or desire to completely divorce the football from questions of club ownership is mindless.

They're very closely related - indeed interdependent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

I've no idea but it's a message forum from 7 years ago ffs.  Would you use anything in pie and bovril to base your case against anyone's character?

Yes, the message relates to a while ago.  And yes, it's hardly the most robust source - there's clearly a need for corroboration.  

However, I think dismissing the allegations themselves as playground in nature, is kind of daft.  There are  question marks over their veracity, but if true they'd surely be very concerning - no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, the message relates to a while ago.  And yes, it's hardly the most robust source - there's clearly a need for corroboration.  

However, I think dismissing the allegations themselves as playground in nature, is kind of daft.  There are  question marks over their veracity, but if true they'd surely be very concerning - no?

Its a message forum. Firstly I wouldnt believe anything I ever read on a message board as being kosher.  Secondly we are talking about some boy moving into a pub here that may or not be this guy.Thirdly if we are looking for owners that are whiter then white then I suggest we are going to struggle to find any?  The other two deals on the table were Alan Gow's group and btb. Noone   knows who is on Alan Gows group and have btb done background checks on every individual patron they have in their consortium? Christ has anyone done serious background checks on the current bod. I'd be shocked if big Lex hasn't shafted someone back in the day on his rise to being where he is.

Lets face it if Abramovich had wanted to buy Falkirk he would've taken some pounding on this board due to his less savoury business dealings in the past. Now he's not done too bad at chelsea.

Edited by Shadwell Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Having worked in the Commercial Banking sector for a number of years and some of the rubbish that people are spouting on here is hilarious.

I have no knowledge of Mark Campbell’s business history, business acumen, previous experience, value of assets and I am also not in a position to judge his character.

What I do know is that high risk due diligence checks will be carried out by the SFA, Falkirk FC and their bankers. If Mark Campbell passes these checks then that’s great, we have a new owner. If he fails, well we are stuck with the current board but not at risk, as such, of being under the stewardship of Mark Campbell.

These checks are built to protect companies and from experience are now more robust than ever.

His US companies will be subject to UK AML checks which are a lot more rigorous than US checks so that should give us more comfort that this will be done correctly.

Whoever went public with their fears is quite frankly an attention seeker as the checks would take place anyway. Not got a clue who it was but I’d suggest, through experience they are not to be trusted and have done it for personal gain.

Lets just let the due diligence checks take place, stop the name calling and take it from there.

Excellent post highlighting the importance of due diligence in any business transaction. The same applies if awarding or winning a contract. If they don't have the financial clout to do what is required then it's a No.

Seen in my self, an offer put in for a tender just too good to be true. Checks take place and low and behold no cash reserves ongoing court injunctions and dead stock on the shelf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look if anyone has any real dirt on this guy with evidence to back it up then get it out there. None of this blexeley taxi shite or can't find him anywhere so he must be a conman crap. Otherwise let due diligence take its course and in the mean time lets hope we can get a win on Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really about him having cash or not for me. It is more about his background and could we trust him or not to look after the club properly. That is where I need convincing.
 
He will have shown enough cash to buy the club - it might not be his - but I am sure they will be have the c400k to buy the place. Will they put anything in after, Will they borrow against the club etc etc etc. That is the unknown for me. Once he has it he can do with it what he wants
 

Let’s say your mates on the BTB team have unearthed something which is enough to scupper the deal (rightly so if it’s bad enough). Obv you won’t know what they’ve unearthed as they are keeping it out of the public domain for the moment.

Would BTB have to re submit a proposal? Would they have to ask the pledge givers again whether they were willing to part with their cash etc? Or could a BTB takeover happen quickly enough? Also how long would DD take on Keith, Kenny and David?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Crawford Baptie said:


Let’s say your mates on the BTB team have unearthed something which is enough to scupper the deal (rightly so if it’s bad enough). Obv you won’t know what they’ve unearthed as they are keeping it out of the public domain for the moment.

Would BTB have to re submit a proposal? Would they have to ask the pledge givers again whether they were willing to part with their cash etc? Or could a BTB takeover happen quickly enough? Also how long would DD take on Keith, Kenny and David?

Would DD not have to be taken on all the patrons involved in the bid? I would presume Alan Gow would have to be contacted and we could end up with the whole thing again.

Edited by Shadwell Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But arent we then into the same thing for any takeover outwith BtB?


I think things would have been much more transparent a the BTB would have been answerable to the Patrons and Fans. Anyway that horse has bolted and we have to see where things go from here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Let’s say your mates on the BTB team have unearthed something which is enough to scupper the deal (rightly so if it’s bad enough). Obv you won’t know what they’ve unearthed as they are keeping it out of the public domain for the moment.

Would BTB have to re submit a proposal? Would they have to ask the pledge givers again whether they were willing to part with their cash etc? Or could a BTB takeover happen quickly enough? Also how long would DD take on Keith, Kenny and David?


No idea what the club would do if this deal fails.
Link to comment
Share on other sites






Or do you think it is not him?


Twitter does seem to back up the links between the claims ie that is his daughter (tidy BTW), he was Bexley cabs and the councillor mentioned is his dad. Not 100%, but there is enough anecdotal evidence in other tweets on those accounts to put the links beyond doubt for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no idea but it's a message forum from 7 years ago ffs.  Would you use anything in pie and bovril to base your case against anyone's character?


Who knows what is going on. I am sick of the whole thing. Only we could make a huge drama of this. Monday has to have been almost the worst thing that could have happened IMO. Build up expectation to a frenzy when nothing is even close to being finalised.

Jesus bring on Peterhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

 


Who knows what is going on. I am sick of the whole thing. Only we could make a huge drama of this. Monday has to have been almost the worst thing that could have happened IMO. Build up expectation to a frenzy when nothing is even close to being finalised.

Jesus bring on Peterhead

 

In fairness it's the fans that are turning it into a drama purely because hes not posted a copy of his bank statement online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, champions said:

In fairness it's the fans that are turning it into a drama purely because hes not posted a copy of his bank statement online.

Am not believing you until you post a copy of your bank statement to back up that statement 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@back post misses is there anything in the club's constitution / articles of association / something else meaningful which would prevent club assets, be that land, buildings or subsidiary companies, from being transferred to another company without say a 75% EGM vote in favour? Could this be put in place prior to any take over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mic_17_uk said:

@back post misses is there anything in the club's constitution / articles of association / something else meaningful which would prevent club assets, be that land, buildings or subsidiary companies, from being transferred to another company without say a 75% EGM vote in favour? Could this be put in place prior to any take over?

At the moment do we still not need an egm to change the fact that any one person can't currently own over 49 percent of the shares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...